ALF V1

Federation of Labour supports East-West connections that keep refining and upgrading jobs in Canada

Edmonton – The Alberta Federation of Labour President submitted final arguments to the National Energy Board in favour of the Enbridge Line 9 Project today.

AFL president Gil McGowan said he supports Line 9 because it keeps value-added jobs in Canada, and is good for the people of Alberta and the people of Quebec. Line 9 will expand and reverse the flow of Line 9 and 9B, connecting the Synthetic Crude Oil coming from Alberta's upgraders to refineries in Quebec.

"Line 9 connects Alberta's upgraders, and all the good-paying jobs that go with them, to refineries in Quebec, where thousands of good jobs are also at stake. It provides a market for synthetic crude, and keeps value-added jobs in both our provinces," McGowan said. "Line 9 allows Quebec refineries to stop importing higher-cost crude from Angola, Nigeria, and Algeria, and instead allows them to buy Alberta's upgraded products, which enhances Canadian energy security."

The AFL is a frequent intervener in National Energy Board pipeline proceedings. The Federation has intervened against Keystone, Keystone XL, Southern Lights, Alberta Clipper, and Northern Gateway, on the grounds that these pipelines ship raw bitumen, and therefore value-added jobs, down the pipeline to the United States or China. This is the first time the Federation has intervened in favour of a pipeline project at the National Energy Board.

The AFL represents 160,000 Alberta workers, including 25,000 in energy and energy-related construction.

Contact the AFL for a copy its Final Written Argument, filed on October 3.

-30-

MEDIA CONTACT:

Gil McGowan, President at 780.218.9888

Olav Rokne, Communications Director, Alberta Federation of Labour at 780.289.6528 (cell) or via e-mail [email protected]

TERRACE, B.C. — Enbridge Inc. shot back at critics of its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline Monday, arguing the project is making enormous and costly commitments to avoid accidents and that the biggest risk to the country is not approving it.

In its final words to a panel of regulators reviewing the project, Northern Gateway lawyer Richard Neufeld said Canada is vulnerable to its only market, the United States, deciding it no longer wants Canadian oil.

"You want to see an economic Black Swan for Canada?" Mr. Neufeld said in addressing fears the pipeline exposes the country to an unpredictable event of massive proportions.

"How about a decision from the U.S. that it will no longer need Canadian oil? ... The $30-billion in export price discounting ... would be a drop in the bucket. Canadians would be facing, we suggest, an economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportion."

After a massive review that reached out to communities along Northern Gateway's proposed right of way from Edmonton to the Northern West Coast, proponents and critics of the oil sands pipeline are presenting their closing oral arguments in this picturesque frontier town about an hour's drive from Kitimat, its endpoint.

Related

In a packed banquet room in the town's main hotel, Mr. Neufeld dismissed the most common criticism of the project — that Enbridge hasn't provided enough information about its risks and the benefits for regulators to approve it.

Participants hold signs in Terrace, B.C., during an anti-pipeline protest, on Sunday June 16, 2013.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Robin Rowland

"Given the volume of information that comprises the hearing record, it's an argument that appears quite hollow to use," Mr. Neufeld said.

"No amount of additional ... information would persuade any member of the tar sands campaign to support a pipeline such as this. They are never going to say that enough information has been provided."

There were no demonstrations at the start of the hearings, although a rally in opposition to the pipeline was held on Sunday in a local park.

The three-member Joint Review Panel of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is expected to wrap up the hearings in two weeks and make a recommendation to the federal government by Dec. 31 on whether the project is in the public interest.

Mr. Neufeld said the project has presented a path forward to address many of the concerns raised during the review, from the potential of an oil spill on land or in the ocean, to engagement with First Nations, and urged the panel to approve it.

"Tradeoffs are a fact of life," he said. "That does not mean that any person or community or region must be marginalized.... all it means is that in determining public interest we need to seek the balance that respects local interests, plans that deliver benefits to local communities, while still ensure that the projects that are needed for this country will proceed. We suggest that this project respect that balance."

But Art Sterritt, representing the province's Coastal First Nations, said Enbridge has failed to show the benefits are greater than the costs and the risks and approval would lead to "nothing but conflict.

"Remember this," he warned panel chair Sheila Leggett.

"Despite the hundreds of millions and effort by the proponents, B.C. First Nations and all of the public of B.C. have rejected this project ... I have never witnessed a project that has garnered such opposition, never in the history of B.C. I don't envy the position that you are in."

Up next are the Alexander First Nation, the Alberta Federation of Labour, B.C. Nature and Nature Canada, and then the province of British Columbia. These are all expected to present Monday.

Ottawa Citizen, Monday, June 17, 2013
Byline:  Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post

EDMONTON - Enbridge insists estimates of environment damage from construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline have been overestimated, because sections of the line will be built in areas already disturbed by a new natural gas pipeline, the federal review panel heard Thursday.

Enbridge lawyer Bernard Roth also questioned the expertise of economist Matthius Ruth, whose report for the Haisla Nation estimates the cost of environmental damage at between $254 million and $775 million for construction along the 1,700 kilometre route from Bruderheim northeast of Edmonton to Kitimat on the British Columbia coast.

That estimate includes cutting trees on the kilometre-wide corridor, crossing rivers and habitat damage, the Joint Review Panel was told.

The proposed $6-billion pipeline will carry 525,000 barrels of Alberta bitumen a day to Kitimat.

Enbridge proposes to use already disturbed land for about 80 per cent of the route, including areas already logged, old roads and along part of the 463-kilometre Pacific Trail Pipeline route, now under construction from the Prince George area to Kitimat.

"Through the entire Haisla territory, the PT pipeline is in the same corridor as the Northern Gateway," said Roth. Any environment impacts there have already occurred and should not be attributed to Enbridge, he said.

"If a road and power line is already constructed and we use the same right of way," how does Enbridge's pipeline cause additional damage? asked Roth.

But Ruth said the environmental costs might be higher because of the "cumulative effects" of two pipelines running through fragile ecosystems.

"Any new project will put additional stress on the environment," he said.

The Haisla Nation is a partner in a proposed liquefied natural gas facility that will ship natural gas from northeast B.C. to China. But they oppose the Enbridge bitumen pipeline because of fears that spills of the sticky product would pollute the water along the coast.

Roth said it's unfair to attach to a pipeline project the additional cost of greenhouse gases emitted in producing the bitumen, shipping it to Asia and burning the resulting gasoline in cars — a total calculation of $206 million in the Matthius report.

"These are indirect costs," he said.

Earlier in the day, a witness for the provincial government told the panel that building the Northern Gateway is just one way to handle the increased bitumen production underway in the oilsands.

Other solutions include upgrading the bitumen to synthetic crude oil, expanding refining capacity in Alberta or slowing the pace of development, said Harold York, author of the Wood Mackenzie report done for the Alberta government.

Oil producers will need other ways, besides the Gateway pipeline, to handle the increased amount of bitumen, he said.

In response to questions from the Alberta Federation of Labour, York noted that to get the price increase producers want, Alberta bitumen must be sold into "coking" refineries that can first upgrade it.

If it is sold to conventional refineries, it could only be used to make lower value fuel oil. That could lower the selling price of the bitumen, he said.

Montreal Gazette, Thurs Sept 27 2012
Byline: Sheila Pratt, The Edmonton Journal

The battle over upgrading oilsands bitumen in Alberta dominated Northern Gateway pipeline hearings Wednesday, with a government consultant arguing local upgrading is not economically viable given the high cost of construction.

But the Alberta Federation of Labour pointed to a 2009 Alberta government report that set a goal of upgrading two-thirds of bitumen in Alberta. Upgrader Alley would have involved $314 billion in capital investment, created two million jobs across the country over 20 years and added $5 trillion to the national GDP.

Harold York, a witness for the province and author of the Wood Gundy report commissioned by Alberta Energy, predicted oilsands producers would lose $8 billion a year if the pipeline does not go ahead, because they would not get access to world prices for bitumen. The proposed pipeline will carry 525,000 barrels a day of bitumen to the West Coast for shipment to refineries in Asia.

York told the Joint Review Panel his analysis was focused on the benefit to oil producers and did not consider other government policy goals.

In response to questions, York said he was unaware of a provincial government goal of upgrading two-thirds of the bitumen in Alberta - though the government did mention to him, without providing details, that it wanted to encourage value-added resource development, he said.

Asked if upgrading the bitumen locally is a viable alternative to exporting, York said no, because building costs are high.

"The capital cost in northern Alberta is large - up to $15 billion for a large upgrader capable of handling 200,000 barrels a day," he said.

Leanne Chahley, a lawyer for the AFL, asked York if he had seen the report of the 2009 hydro-carbon upgrader task force produced by the energy department. York said he had not.

That report outlines a vision of "world-scale industrial complexes" northeast of Edmonton, known as "Upgrader Alley," that would produce higher value products such as synthetic crude oil and petrochemicals.

If the Northern Gateway pipeline goes ahead, experts have told the panel the amount of upgrading here will decline to 26 per cent by 2025, Chahley pointed out.

Earlier in the day, energy department official Christopher Holly, the only other government witness, confirmed the province will not present any other information to the panel. Holly rejected the suggestion that the energy department should have considered new pollution regulations set out in the recently approved Lower Athabasca Regional Development Plan when calculating the economic benefits for the oil industry.

Barry Robinson, lawyer for a coalition of B.C. environmental groups, told the panel that documents filed for Shell's proposed Jackpine oilsands mine expansion show that air quality limits (set out in LARP) will be breached if all planned oilsands projects go ahead.

The levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide will exceed the limits set out in the LARP, according to the documents.

The Edmonton Journal, Thurs Sept 27 2012
Byline: Sheila Pratt

CALGARY, Alberta, Sept 24 (Reuters) - A lawyer for Enbridge Inc said on Monday that a prominent economist opposed to its Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Canada's West Coast is wrong in her contention that the project will raise costs for refiners, regardless of where their crude comes from.

At public hearings into the C$6 billion ($6.1 billion) project, Enbridge attorney Rick Neufeld told British Columbia economist Robyn Allan the company's market experts have shown that Northern Gateway will not restrict crude supplies in other markets on the continent, as she has concluded.

Allan, former chief executive of the Insurance Corp of British Columbia, provided an economic assessment of Northern Gateway early this year for the Alberta Federation of Labour, which opposes the 525,000 barrel a day pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia, for crude oil shipment to Asia.

Neufeld took issue with Allan's evidence that the export pipeline would result in $2-$3 per barrel annual increases in oil prices across the country between 2016 and 2046, including for Eastern refineries now supplied almost exclusively with imported oil priced against international benchmark Brent oil.

"Indeed that's what you've told people around the country, and I'm suggesting to you, Ms Allan, that that's not the evidence of these witnesses," Neufeld said at the proceedings in Edmonton. "They did not suggest that Northern Gateway would increase the price of Brent crude, and you were here for that."

The exchange was part of the first opportunity Enbridge has had to cross-examine its opponents. Most of the testimony in hearings before a federal Joint Review Panel into the contentious Northern Gateway project has so far been about environmental issues, but the Edmonton proceedings are delving solely into economic impacts and benefits.

One aim of the project is to remove a price discount on Canadian oil that currently exists due to an oversupply of oil in traditional markets such as the U.S. Midwest. Enbridge said Canadian producers would benefit by diversifying their markets to include Asia, where prices are higher.

The Alberta Federation of Labour opposes the pipeline because, the group says, it would mean the loss of oil processing and refining jobs in Canada as the raw material gets shipped across the Rockies to the Pacific.

Neufeld said Enbridge's evidence, prepared by consultants Muse Stancil and Wright Mansell Research, did not show that the pipeline would restrict oil supplies in North America, push up gasoline prices for consumers, or have any impact on oil prices in other parts of the world, as Allan has concluded.

Allan has argued that restricted supply in North American markets as a result of oil being redirected to Asia on Northern Gateway, and the international determination of crude prices, will push up prices for all supply bought by Canadian refiners.

"In your view then, if Northern Gateway was to improve the price - or reduce the discounting of Canadian crude, put it that way - by $2 a barrel, the price of crude delivered by OPEC would increase by $2 a barrel. That's your evidence?," Neufeld said.

Allan did not argue that point, saying she derived her contentions by taking numbers and assumptions in Enbridge's expert reports to their "logical conclusion."

"Based on the analysis that was provided in both the Muse and the Wright Mansell reports, the redirection of supply takes oil out of markets and when the supply goes down, the price goes up," she said. "With the ... fact that the oil is going to be redirected from Ontario and Quebec, that is going to affect the Eastern Canadian market."

However, her written evidence criticizes Enbridge's reports, saying they leave out a number of aspects that raise questions about their reliability. Those include analysis of sensitivities to prices, currency exchange rates, changes to supply as well as other risks to the forecasts.

"All of those are standard business practice that would be undertaken if the proponent's analysis was delivered to an investor or a lender. In any of the other places where it needs to prove its case, those standards would have been delivered," she said.

Rueters, Tues Sept 25 2012
Byline: Jeffrey Jones

The late Peter Lougheed's enduring legacy in Alberta's oil industry was evident Monday as the former Alberta premier was cited by both proponents and opponents of the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline during regulatory hearings in Edmonton.

Both sides claimed support from the widely respected Lougheed, who died Sept. 13.

"In one of his last interviews, didn't he say the (Northern Gateway) pipeline was essential for Alberta?" Enbridge lawyer Rick Neufeld asked at one point during his cross-examination of Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan.

McGowan responded that Lougheed shared the federation's concerns about the pace of oilsands development, that too many oilsands projects exported raw bitumen and there are not enough benefits to Alberta from upgrading and refining the bitumen into consumer products locally.

"Lougheed took an activist approach to ensure we had a value-added industry," he said, according to a story from The Canadian Press. "It (the oilsands industry) wouldn't have been here without government policy and intervention."

Here's a thought: both sides should cease and desist with the Lougheed references.

Lougheed was a champion of oilsands development but he was also concerned about the rapid pace of development. He has been widely lauded since his passing as one of Canada's greatest politicians and statesmen. His family and friends continue to mourn his passing even as his name is being bandied about the hearing room for one of the most contentious public policy debates in Canada in years.

To be clear, it's as far from speaking ill of the dead as possible. There's presumably nothing but respect for the former premier from everyone involved in these exchanges, but it still comes off as ill-timed at a minimum.

The allure of an "endorsement" from Lougheed for either side is obvious.

Third-party endorsement - especially from a credible and respected source - is invaluable to any communication campaign. Make no mistake, every word uttered during the hearings is part of a broader communications strategy by all sides in the campaigns for or against regulatory approval and public support for any pipeline.

Regardless, it seems inappropriate to cite, or even imply, support from Lougheed as if it was some sort of message from on high or death-bed confession simply be-cause it serves your political or commercial endeavour.

It's not as if the current premiers - from Alberta's Alison Redford, among the proponents, and B.C.'s Christy Clark, for the opponents - haven't provided enough commentary on the $6-billion pipeline project. Both have offered up more than enough observations to provide fodder for lawyers at the Joint Review Panel for weeks.

They can also explain or defend their positions and not leave it to others to interpret and infer what may, or may not, be relevant.

The references to Lougheed came as Enbridge and some oil producers that have secured ship-ping on the 525,000 barrel a day pipeline got to cross examine witnesses before the Joint Review Panel for the first time in the hearing process.

The Edmonton portion of the hearings, which addresses economic issues, are scheduled to conclude this week. The hearings will resume in October in Prince George, B.C., to address concerns about the environment and First Nations along the 1,172 kilometre route. Finally the panel moves on to Prince Rupert, B.C. to address maritime issues once bitumen is moved onto ocean-going tankers.

A decision from the Joint Re-view Panel is expected in 2013.

The federation has said the pipeline taking bitumen from the Edmonton area to the B.C. coast at Kitimat for export to Pacific Rim markets will make it harder to create upgrading and refining jobs in Alberta and increase fuel prices throughout Canada. Enbridge contends that isn't the case.

Neufeld noted there is plenty of bitumen available in Alberta and Enbridge has never said it would restrict bitumen for refineries or upgraders.

McGowan also said export pipelines would add to an already overheated economy with higher labour and material costs.

Neufeld challenged economist Robyn Allan over her statements the 550,000-barrel-per-day pipe-line would push up the price of crude oil by $2 to $3 a barrel annually in Canada. Enbridge said Northern Gateway would create a one-time boost of $2 to $3 per barrel if it comes on stream at the end of this decade.

Allan responded: "When you take oil out of North America and take it to Asia the price increase is going to affect all markets in the long run."

And that is exactly the difference.

Allan, McGowan, Neufeld and the others can all speak for themselves. Lougheed cannot and, as a sign of respect, he should be left out of these hearings.

Calgary Herald, Tues Sept 25 2012
Byline: Stephen Ewart

EDMONTON - Comments made by the late Peter Lougheed hung over public hearings Monday about a pipeline that would ship bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to Asian markets.

Both sides in the debate tried to claim the support of the former Alberta premier who died Sept. 13.

Rick Neufeld, lawyer for pipeline proponent Enbridge (TSX:ENB), suggested Lougheed backed the line's construction.

"In one of his last interviews, didn't he say the (Northern Gateway) pipeline was essential for Alberta?" he asked while cross-examining Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

In response, McGowan suggested Lougheed was sympathetic to the federation's concerns that too many oilsands projects were exporting raw bitumen and robbing Albertans of some of the benefits they would reap from upgrading it in the province.

"Lougheed took an activist approach to ensure we had a value-added industry," McGowan told the National Energy Board. "It wouldn't have been here without government policy and intervention."

The federation's previous testimony that the $6-billion project would make it harder to create upgrading and refining jobs in Alberta, as well as increase fuel prices throughout Canada, came under repeated attack in Monday's cross-examination.

Neufeld pointed out there is no shortage of bitumen currently available for anyone interesting in building a refinery. Nor has Calgary-based Enbridge ever said it would restrict access to bitumen.

He disputed the notion that pipelines encourage the export of raw natural resources. He noted that the Transmountain pipeline originally built to transport crude now moves both oil and refined products.

McGowan responded that the labour group believes projects such as Northern Gateway help price Alberta out of the market for new industrial development. He said the pipeline would only help speed oilsands development, creating demands for labour and materials that drive up their cost.

Neufeld also grilled federation adviser Robyn Allan over her testimony that the 550,000-barrel-a-day pipeline would drive up fuel costs in the rest of Canada.

"So if Canadian producers get higher netbacks in Edmonton, refineries will have to pay more in New Brunswick?" he asked.

Allan responded that oil shipped to Asia would no longer be available to North Americans, which will eventually raise its price.

"When you take oil out of North America and take it to Asia the price increase is going to affect all markets in the long run," she said.

Enbridge analysts have argued that the price of oil is set globally and the Gateway pipeline wouldn't change the price of the Venezuelan, European and Middle Eastern oil on which refineries in Central Canada rely.

In afternoon testimony, federation lawyer Leanne Chahley revisited potential Chinese ownership shares in the pipeline.

Cross-examining a panel of energy producers who hope to ship on Gateway, Chahley pointed out that one of them — Nexen — is being bought out by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp. Nexen holds one of 10 shares that give it an option for a five per cent ownership stake.

MEG Energy — owner of another of the ownership options — is about 15 per cent owned by the Chinese corporation.

Chahley also pointed out that Total E and P Canada, another hopeful Gateway shipper, is involved with two developments that include some level of Chinese investment.

The Canadian Press online edition, Monday Sept 24 2012
Byline: Bob Weber

Bitumen pipeline placement

Both sides in the debate tried to claim the support of the former Alberta premier who died Sept. 13.

Rick Neufeld, lawyer for pipeline proponent Enbridge (TSX:ENB), suggested Lougheed backed the line's construction.

"In one of his last interviews, didn't he say the [Northern Gateway] pipeline was essential for Alberta?" he asked while cross-examining Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

In response, McGowan suggested Lougheed was sympathetic to the federation's concerns that too many oilsands projects were exporting raw bitumen and robbing Albertans of some of the benefits they would reap from upgrading it in the province.

"Lougheed took an activist approach to ensure we had a value-added industry," McGowan told the National Energy Board. "It wouldn't have been here without government policy and intervention."

The federation's previous testimony that the $6-billion project would make it harder to create upgrading and refining jobs in Alberta, as well as increase fuel prices throughout Canada, came under repeated attack in Monday's cross-examination.

No shortage of bitumen

Neufeld pointed out there is no shortage of bitumen currently available for anyone interested in building a refinery. Nor has Calgary-based Enbridge ever said it would restrict access to bitumen.

He disputed the notion that pipelines encourage the export of raw natural resources. He noted that the Transmountain pipeline originally built to transport crude now moves both oil and refined products.

McGowan responded that the labour group believes projects such as Northern Gateway help price Alberta out of the market for new industrial development. He said the pipeline would only help speed oilsands development, creating demands for labour and materials that drive up their cost.

Neufeld also grilled federation adviser Robyn Allan over her testimony that the 550,000-barrel-a-day pipeline would drive up fuel costs in the rest of Canada.

"So if Canadian producers get higher netbacks in Edmonton, refineries will have to pay more in New Brunswick?" he asked.

Allan responded that oil shipped to Asia would no longer be available to North Americans, which will eventually raise its price.

"When you take oil out of North America and take it to Asia the price increase is going to affect all markets in the long run," she said.

Enbridge analysts have argued that the price of oil is set globally and the Gateway pipeline wouldn't change the price of the Venezuelan, European and Middle Eastern oil on which refineries in Central Canada rely.

In afternoon testimony, federation lawyer Leanne Chahley revisited potential Chinese ownership shares in the pipeline.

Cross-examining a panel of energy producers who hope to ship on Gateway, Chahley pointed out that one of them — Nexen — is being bought out by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp. Nexen holds one of 10 shares that give it an option for a five per cent ownership stake.

MEG Energy — owner of another of the ownership options — is about 15 per cent owned by the Chinese corporation.

Chahley also pointed out that Total E and P Canada, another hopeful Gateway shipper, is involved with two developments that include some level of Chinese investment.

CBC News and iPolitics, Mon Sept 24 2012
The Canadian Press

EDMONTON - Both sides in the Northern Gateway pipeline debate claimed support from former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed during some testy moments at hearings into the proposed 525,000-barrel-a-day pipeline that would take oilsands bitumen to the west coast of British Columbia.

On Monday, Rick Neufeld, lawyer for pipeline proponent Enbridge Inc., challenged the Alberta Federation of Labour position that shipping raw bitumen to Asia will hurt the Canadian refining industry and send value-added jobs down the pipeline.

AFL President Gil McGowan told the review panel the AFL position reflects the views of Lougheed who urged the province to upgrade bitumen in the province rather the shipping the raw product — and value-added jobs down the pipeline.

McGowan also argued that Lougheed called for a more moderate pace of development in the oilsands to avoid the high inflation of a boom economy that causes construction costs to escalate. Building the $6 billion pipeline at this time would add to that inflationary cycle, aggravate shortage of labour and thereby discourage construction of local upgraders, he said.

That prompted Enbridge lawyer Rick Neufeld to suggest that Lougheed came out in favour of the pipeline in his last interview before he died on Sept 13.

"In one of his last interviews, didn't he say the (Northern Gateway) pipeline was essential for Alberta," Neufeld asked McGowan.

McGowan replied that the AFL is not opposed to new pipelines themselves, just the export of raw bitumen to foreign refineries.

"We're not opposed to accessing new markets, you're just selling the wrong product," McGowan said.

He also told the panel that without Lougheed's intervention, the province would not have a petrochemical industry."

"Lougheed took an activist approach," to establish a petrochemical industry, requiring that ethane feedstock be stripped off natural gas being shipped out of province. "It would not have been here without government intervention."

Neufeld disagreed that Northern Gateway will discourage local refining and said it carries no restrictions on the availability of bitumen for upgrading and refining in Canada.

Neufeld noted that Kinder Morgan's Transmountain pipeline, built in the 1950s from Edmonton to Vancouver, initially carried crude oil only and now also carries refined product.

Neufeld also asked McGowan if — in the wake a speech by Mark Carney, Bank of Canada governor — the AFL had changed its view that the Northern Gateway will promote Dutch disease in the Canadian economy and hurt the manufacturing sector.

In a speech on Sept. 7, Carney said Canada's reliance on oil is "unambiguously good" for the country, called for more pipelines and dismissed fears about Dutch disease.

McGowan dismissed Carney's speech as "political spin that may have come from the PMO ."

Figures in Carney's speech show the higher oil prices are part of the explanation for the higher dollar that hurts manufacturing, said McGowan. "So his lips say no, but his figures say yes."

Later, Neufeld challenged the credentials of economist Robyn Allan who advised the AFL and whose economic analysis shows Canadians will pay with higher prices at the pumps.

Enbridge's analysis dismissed Allan's analysis. Northern Gateway will take 525,000 barrels a day of bitumen out of Western Canada, resulting in higher prices to western Canadian producers.

But the new pipeline would not cause an increase in prices for imported oil paid by eastern Canadian refineries, said Neufeld.

Meanwhile, Canada's Buildings Trades Council, a national organization of construction unions and the Teamsters, came out in favour of the Northern Gateway project.

Canadian construction workers in both Eastern and Western Canada will benefit from thousands of jobs generated in building the pipeline, say the releases.

"The pipeline will further cement our place as an oil producing country in an increasing energy hungry world" and will contribute to Canada's reputation "an energy super power," said the organization, adding that every one dollar spent in construction generates two dollars in the economy.

Later in the day, an AFL lawyer questioned five companies who intend to use the Gateway pipeline to ship bitumen — Cenovus, MEG, Nexen, Suncor and Total.

Calgary-based MEG corporation is currently building a 470,000 a day pipeline from Fort McMurray to Bruderheim near Edmonton. About 130,000 barrels a day of condensate will be needed to blend with the bitumen to get it to flow in the pipeline. That supply will "come into Canada from somewhere," they told the panel.

The review panel must submit its recommendation by December 2013. The federal government will make the final decision.

The Edmonton Journal, Mon Sept 24 2012
Byline: Sheila Pratt

The benefits to the oil industry of Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline may be exaggerated and its costs to the economy and environment underestimated, hearings into the project have been told.

The $6-billion pipeline project has been touted as a way to link burgeoning production from Alberta's oil sands to growing markets in Asia, which would allow Canadian producers to improve profits by reaping higher prices for crude overseas.

But a lawyer for the Haisla First Nation, which claims much of the land through which the pipeline would travel, said on Tuesday that projections of nearly $1.5-billion a year in increased revenue by 2018 are inflated.

Hana Boye said the estimate Enbridge is presenting at the National Energy Board hearings was developed with figures from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that suggest oil supply in Western Canada will grow by 6.5 per cent per year between 2011 and 2020.

That's different than what Enbridge is telling its investors, Ms. Boye said. The company's own estimate is 4.4 per cent growth – a difference of 500,000 barrels a day by 2020 that would lead to a corresponding drop in revenues earned by producers.

"Have you given a different supply forecast to your shareholders than that provided to the panel?" Ms. Boye asked Enbridge's Gateway manager, John Carruthers, on Tuesday.

Mr. Carruthers acknowledged that different figures have been used at different times. Estimates can vary depending on assumptions of what the mix of varying crudes would be, he said.

"There would be times when we would see differences."

But the variances aren't big enough to change the project's economics, Mr. Carruthers said.

"The minor changes over time don't change the project need."

Ms. Boye added that the project could discourage the upgrading of oil sands bitumen in Alberta and that its cost to the environment hasn't been fully evaluated.

She pressed Enbridge over the use of diluent – lightweight solvents mixed with bitumen or other heavy crudes to make them flow through a pipe. Although the mix varies, about one-third of what would flow through the Gateway line would be diluent. The Gateway project includes a second pipeline that would bring diluent from the B.C. coast to Alberta. Ms. Boye suggested the cost of that diluent has not been factored into calculations of producer benefit.

Ignoring the cost of diluent exaggerates the case for shipping raw bitumen outside Alberta for upgrading or refining, said Robyn Allan, an analyst for the Alberta Federation of Labour who is advising the Haisla.

"There is no economic analysis ... that's been supplied to the hearings [of the impact] to the Canadian economy when we import condensate instead of upgrading in Alberta," she said outside the hearing.

Ms. Boye also questioned environmental economist Mark Anielski about his dollar-value calculation of the project's environmental impact. She pointed out that his analysis included only the 50-metre pipeline right of way and ignored possible effects outside that corridor.

Mr. Anielski responded that those effects could exist, but there's no credible method of putting a monetary value on them. He also acknowledged his report didn't put a value on a wide array of ecological effects from forests that would be disturbed by the pipeline – everything from erosion control to genetic diversity to pollination.

The Canadian Press, Tuesday Sept 18 2012
Byline: Bob Weber